Picking logos is always hard for me, so for this project I used 99Designs, a contest-based design site. There are now 67 submissions. All for $500 (same amount I paid for the domain, coincidentally). Here’s one of my favorites so far, by designer Simplelegant:

If you want, check out the rest and leave feedback here. Thanks, and everybody have a great weekend.

Let’s say Google executive Matt Cutts leaves the company to found a competing search engine. God knows why, but he decides to go the equity crowdfunding route. That’s despite the fact that instead of t-shirts or beta access, he’s giving away part of his business. And he’ll only be able to raise $1m, compared to the $10+ he would likely raise on Kickstarter.

His fundraising hits the JOBS Act $1m limit in ~3m.

This would be an amazing opportunity. One of the brightest engineers in search starting a Google competitor. Everyone in the VC/angel/ECF/seed space would want in. But only the first $1m in gets a piece.

It’s very likely that word about a hot deal like this would leak. When it launches, people will be ready. Likely using scripts, they’ll snap up as much as they can the second it goes live.

As I understand it, this would be perfectly legal. In fact, I’m looking into how it could be done.

As a preface to this piece, let me say I am a big supporter of equity crowdfunding. It’s ridiculous that we, as non-accredited investors, have not been able to invest in startups until now. Due to the accredited investor laws, I personally missed an opportunity to invest $25k in my friend’s startup in 2006, and it’d be worth $750k today.

But as written, the (still not finalized) JOBS act is fundamentally flawed. The $1m/year limit on fundraising cripples it from the start. In the US, the philanthropic side of the industry raised $3b in 2012, and it’s only 3 years old. Indiegogo and Kickstarter are doing $10m deals, regularly. Equity crowdfunding could, and should be much bigger. As big as the NYSE if we let it. Cheaper, more equal, and no high frequency trading (hopefully).

Explosive growth is inevitable in the space. But if we want it to happen efficiently, and soon, the government needs to give it space. When deals sell out in under 5 minutes, people are not going to be happy. When entrepreneurs pick Kickstarter over Crowdfunder, the economy is damaged. Distributing equity to small investors is a fundamental element of the economic engine.

It rewards smart business, and smart investing, and encourages more of both, which has a compounding growth effect on the economy. And every day we delay, we are compounding our growth losses. You want real growth? Raise the limit to $100m. Wall St’s monopoly would fade away, and small business would thrive.

Hypothetical

If you’re not convinced that ECF legislation is flawed, consider this example. Let’s say Google executive Matt Cutts leaves the company to found a competing search engine. God knows why, but he decides to go the equity route. That’s despite the fact that instead of t-shirts or beta access, he’s giving away part of his business. And he’ll only be able to raise $1m, compared to the $10+ he would likely raise on Kickstarter.

His fundraising hits the JOBS Act $1m limit in ~3m. He’s ok with that, but probably regrets not going the philanthropic CF route. He could have given away 1/10th the capital and raised 10x as much.

Now, I’ve met Matt, and he’s scary smart. Ran into him at the Wynn during Pubcon 2007 and chatted for about two hours. He was sober, I was tipsy, and he was trying to find out what SEOs are doing to game Google these days (I do web marketing by day). He joined GOOG in 2000 ( and is the head of search quality. PhD from UNC (my hometown, go Heels).

And I’m pretty sure he, and most intelligent people in his (hypothetical) position would pick Kickstarter over an equity crowdfunding option. Why wouldn’t he? Issue equity shares, or give away shirts and beta access?

$50m. That’s the minimum limit we need. Ideally, there should be none. I realize that’s not going to happen, so am pushing for a nice, round, bureaucratic number that politicians will understand.

The JOBS Act arbitrarily set a $1m/year limit for equity crowfunding (ECF).

Meanwhile, Kickstarter-style sites will still be able to raise $10m+. Like in the Pebble watch project.

The result is that ECF-style deals are at a disadvantage vs. philanthropic ones . Entrepreneurs who want to shoot for the moon are likely to try donation-based funding first. Not much bad can happen if they do. And if they don’t raise $10m with their campaign giving away stickers and t-shirts, there’s always equity crowdfunding, despite the $1m ceiling.

And besides, a million dollars is such a round, bureaucratic number. Why a million? For one, bigger numbers would represent a threat to Wall St. Fully audited companies raising big money on new platforms with low fees, no preferential treatment IPOs, and no high-frequency trading? That is something to be squashed if you’re the NYSE, Goldman, or JPMorgan.

Crowded Out

Today a Kickstarter movie raised $2.1 million. In about 8 hours. Imagine if people were getting equity! That would have reached the SEC”s limit in minutes.

We need a very high deal-size limit, or the whole thing could be set back years. Algorithmic traders might eventually auto-buy offerings based on set criteria (if Ycombinator is in, buy). Deals could sellout in less than a minute, and make Black Friday look like a Mormon birthday party.

If you agree it’s a problem, consider contacting the SEC and letting them know. And maybe tell them to finalize the regulations while you’re at it. They’re over deadline and time’s wasting.